Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'd also love to try my hand at making a Catholic of you in turn, but I think we outa focus on at LEAST making deists of every agnostic, atheist, and anti-theist here, lmao

Why? I don’t want to convert anyone thank you very much.

I'm effectively a Deist (albeit strongly influenced by my Catholic upbringing and my many personal superstitions).

I believe in a higher being, and I believe that there are things in this world we simply cannot see or comprehend, but it is a highly abstract comprehension of it. I don't believe in Sky Daddy, I believe in...something.

[Jolthig]

Why? I don’t want to convert anyone thank you very much.

I'm effectively a Deist (albeit strongly influenced by my Catholic upbringing and my many personal superstitions).

I believe in a higher being, and I believe that there are things in this world we simply cannot see or comprehend, but it is a highly abstract comprehension of it. I don't believe in Sky Daddy, I believe in...something.

I find deism to be interesting. Especially for the fact that much of the founding fathers of the US were deists, especially Thomas Jefferson who made his own bible based off the KJV but took out the miracles in the Bible.

[Thermodolia]

We jews have a similar view regarding miracles, or at least Reform does. It’s pretty much forbidden to pray for a miracle, or at least not advisable to do so.

There’s a good Hasidic proverb on miracles, “a Jew who believes that all the miracles said to have been performed actually happened is a fool, but anyone who believes that they could not have happened is an unbeliever.”

We Ahmadi Muslims believe that miracles are a natural phenomenon because Allah is unchanging being. How can he break his natural laws with a snap of a finger? Like the myths of Jesus and Elijah bringing people back from the dead. That contradicts God's natural laws because when you die, you die. You're dead. You return to Allah according to the Holy Quran. I'm not sure of what the Torah and Tanakh say though. Perhaps a similar view? I know every soul goes to She'ol.

Yes there’s the Jewish views on miracles is very similar. Though some rabbis believe that Elijah bringing people back was more of people going unconscious and then coming too or someone having a heart attack.

[The Alma Mater]

Why? I don’t want to convert anyone thank you very much.

I'm effectively a Deist (albeit strongly influenced by my Catholic upbringing and my many personal superstitions).

I believe in a higher being, and I believe that there are things in this world we simply cannot see or comprehend, but it is a highly abstract comprehension of it. I don't believe in Sky Daddy, I believe in...something.

Does that something care about your worship or is it just there?
Usually deists tend to believe that a God created our world and then moved on with his life, instead of demanding constant obedience and worship.

[Salandriagado]

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚
Welp, there's a fuckton to talk about here, and I've never been one to shy away from a theological challenge, so here goes nothing.

May God have mercy on me for being so insufferable, lmao

If God loves us, why do we have such fallible free will that leads to such horrible things, and why did he give us limited natural resources and economic scarcity?

God wants us to go to Him, completely of our own accord. That means we're able to choose everything OF Him, and everything that ISN'T of Him, including the horrible stuff, you see? It's a part of our journey here on this Earth to experience pain, and suffering, because said things are innately human in their nature. We're imperfect creatures after all.

Again: childhood cancer. Why? Dying before they're old enough to understand the religion sure as fuck doesn't help the children go to your god, and inflicting that on children to achieve your own ends is fucking evil. So, is your god non-existent, evil, or stupid ("all of the above" is a valid answer)?

The faith community is not the only one out there.

While true, if you put the best trained Jew, the best trained Catholic, the best trained atheist, the best trained Hindu, etc. etc. aaall in a room together and made them all come to a logical, and sound agreement, you'd find that the scholasticism of the Catholic apologist would beat out any argument made against it. There are actual, theological holes in other faiths, but the Catholic one is air tight when you get right down to the fact of the matter.

That's just not true at all. The Catholic faith is full of holes left, right, and centre. See, for example, the one I pointed out above, the hillarious attempt to pretend it's not polytheistic, the fact that its "absolute facts" tend to change according to local politics, and the numerous internal contradictions in a book that it claims to be infallible. The only person on your list with a position that is both logically consistent and consistent with observed reality is the atheist.

I feel more satisfied not having to waste an hour every Sunday.

Well of course you feel that way. That isn't much of an argument though, because if you were of the faith, you wouldn't see it as a waste at all.

That's just plain obvious though, so eh.

Seriously though, how much of a waste can it be if it leads to eternal life? To true beatitude?

This is circular logic.

There've been a lot of studies which show that happiness levels are reportedly higher among active parishioners, if you want to look at that secularly. Surely that can't be the product of a "waste of time", right?

Any kind of regular social interaction raises happiness levels.

Yes, which is why I find it in other things.

It wouldn't be much of an overstatement if I said that my playthrough of Mafia III was more fullfilling than all the years of contact with Christianity.

C'mon man, surely you don't believe that dedicating your life to a video game is the ultimate purpose in your life. As a brother and a friend, I'm telling you man, there's so much more out there yet to be seen, so many great things that we're being called to do, and to live through.

That's not what he said. He said that Christianity is lower down the list than that video game. I haven't even played it, but I'm inclined to agree.

If you've never eaten of the feast, how can you know that there's anything other than the piecemeal scraps you've been given your whole life?

As you noticed, he did "eat of the feast". Not that it's relevant, because we're discussing the nature of reality, not which lies make us feel better.

Some twisted asshole might fly a plane over somebody and drop nails, but do we all wear hard hats?

I think we might if he was capable of being everywhere, like God is. Lucky for us, we belong to an all loving God who wouldn't dream of getting into that metaphorical plane if you will, lmao.

And yet, has no problem dropping childhood lukemia on us, which is, by every measure, vastly worse than dropping nails out of a plane.

[Jolthig]

We Ahmadi Muslims believe that miracles are a natural phenomenon because Allah is unchanging being. How can he break his natural laws with a snap of a finger? Like the myths of Jesus and Elijah bringing people back from the dead. That contradicts God's natural laws because when you die, you die. You're dead. You return to Allah according to the Holy Quran. I'm not sure of what the Torah and Tanakh say though. Perhaps a similar view? I know every soul goes to She'ol.

Yes there’s the Jewish views on miracles is very similar. Though some rabbis believe that Elijah bringing people back was more of people going unconscious and then coming too or someone having a heart attack.

This is the Ahmadiyya view on miracles regarding raising people from the dead as well. The apparent dead person was really unconscious and has a sickness of some sort.

Usually, these types of miracles aren't impressive to the modern eye, but they had a purpose because of how hard hearted the Jews at the time were. Muhammad never physically "raised people from the dead".

Besides the point, a fabricator can easily imitate those miracles.

[Erythrean Thebes]

You have explicitly claimed both of those, repeatedly.

No, I haven't. Astrophysics and evolutionary science are some of my favorite subjects outside of history.

Do you think that the notion that evil people deserve punishment and good people deserve assistance requires justification?

Yes. Yes, I do.

According to conventional morality, say in a random town in New England in the present, are you evil or do you do evil?

Collective punishment is also inherently evil.

I believe it's usually wrong, but it's hardly the worst thing in the world.

I am only debating if it logically follows that ‘within the world of the Biblical reality, the barren state of mankind’s relationship to God is justified by the events which are purported to have directly led up to it.’

Stop lying.

Why do you say that I am lying?

You are an uncritical practitioner of the religion, just one who likes to dress up your lack of critical thought in fancy words, and pay lip-service to critical thought.

You have no grounds for saying that to me. You have actually broken a cardinal rule of debate, both by attacking me personally, and by deliberately lying and making claims about me that I took pains to lay aside in all of my earlier posts. Actually, I have stringently applied myself to show respect to you, and to everyone in this thread, and even if you said the cruelest things imaginable about me, I would still do that kindness for you Salandriagado.

It is not, in any way, consistent with reality, though, so that's utterly irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, the debate won't continue, if you make arguments for the nonexistence of God, because I don't contend that God exists, and I won't try to offer any proof of that you. So in what way have I lied about myself, and about what I am debating?

[Salandriagado]

You claim that your god created the world, no? Then, being omniscient, he knew the consequences of that initial setup. Thus, he knew that childhood cancer would arise in the world that he created. He then chose not to remove it. That, right there, is evil.

Okay, regarding that, any diseases of any kind according to science is neither good nor bad. They just happen to be natural. Especially a child having cancer or any diseases of any kind by anyone who has them. Yet, there are also cures that scientists invent or have yet to be invented.

That's only valid if you believe that the diseases come from a mindless process. That is: if you assume that there is no god. If there is a god, then all natural actions are the deliberate result of that god's actions, and so those that cause suffering to innocents are evil, by any sane definition of the word "evil".

According to Islam, all the diseases, natural disasters, and what not are all trials and there is a hidden good in them. An opportunity for humanity to find a cure, and to advance from it, or that evolution gives individuals ways to resist diseases over the course of long periods of time.

That's just not answering the question. At any rate, torturing children to death is still evil, even if you say it's for the greater good.

This gives evidence of a God guiding the process of how his creation are generated.

That's not how evidence works.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm effectively a Deist (albeit strongly influenced by my Catholic upbringing and my many personal superstitions).

I believe in a higher being, and I believe that there are things in this world we simply cannot see or comprehend, but it is a highly abstract comprehension of it. I don't believe in Sky Daddy, I believe in...something.

Does that something care about your worship or is it just there?
Usually deists tend to believe that a God created our world and then moved on with his life, instead of demanding constant obedience and worship.

I'd say a combination of both, really.

He created the universe and its mechanisms that allow it to function largely on its own, but naturally, nothing ever happens just like that...somebody has to be nudging the strings.

[Salandriagado]

You absolutely are making claims: you're claiming that a god exists, you're claiming that it's yours, you're making some hilariously incorrect claims about history, and so on.

Now you've told a lie about me. You don't think that's wrong? It's not wrong for you, after I've said that my contention is only that the Bible is logically consistent, to lie and say that I'm claiming God is real?

What you say now is irrelevant. The fact of what claims you've made remains. If you wish to retract your claims, feel free.

[Salandriagado]

It's irrelevant: any god worth worshipping has the capacity to end childhood lukemia, without any great difficulty. Any entity that can't do that is no more omnipotent than I am. Any entity that could do that, but doesn't, is evil.

This is a good point, why would an omnipotent, purely good entity allow for evil. I'm unconvinced of the arguments that we need to know pain to know pleasure, but I've got another idea: It's an opportunity. We are supposed to take Jesus as like an example, right? Do good things, cure the sick, feed the hungry, walk on water, etc. God made the leukemia, so we have to assume the leukemia is somehow good (I feel you'll take contention with this bridge, but stay with me), and it is good because.... I don't know, my guess would be that it allows us to play doctor. It is important to God that we know how to cure childhood leukemia. The better question then is why aren't we born with this knowledge? Well, we could be, but that wouldn't make us good, it is not in the knowledge of curing patients that doctors are so lauded, but in the act of actually curing patients. This logic reeks of circularity, but there might be something there?

Still evil: If someone came up to you and said "I'm going to torture children to death so that people can get better at treating the injuries that come from torture", you'd call them both mad and evil.

[Salandriagado]

That's, interesting.. So what are your guys' view on Moses and Abraham then? Metaphorical figures?

I’d say halfway between real and legend. Especially for Moses. But metaphorical figures would probably fit.

Similar sort of state to Ragnar Lothbrok, then? Lots of people who claimed to be his children without anybody objecting too loudly definitely existed, but nobody's really sure how much of what's written about him is true, up to and including whether he's a single individual or an aglomeration of tales about different people.

[Salandriagado]

I don't claim that God created the world. I also contend that, in the Bible, God is not omniscient. It is actually one of the first things that happens in the Bible. God creates the world but he doesn't know that Adam and Eve will violate his instructions, and eat from the Tree of Knowledge. God is shocked when they do. This shows that he is not omniscient.

This is all kinds of messed up theologically so I'll just get to it:

God IS omniscient, but in order to preserve our free will, He keeps Himself from seeing our future. In doing so, and in creating anything apart from Himself, He gave up at least a bit of His complete control of the Universe. So while God surely knew that diseases and such might arise later on down the line, it clearly wasn't enough to stop Him from enacting His perfect will, which was to create us, and then lead us back to Him. That process results in eternal life, and beatitude for us, the ultimate and only source of happiness in our existence; of course He was going to put us into the world!

So no, God doesn't just go around putting tumors in the heads of kids. That's so contrary to everything about the nature of God, haha. It's just the logical end of a world that's metaphysically distinct from God. If we only existed within his complete presence, we wouldn't really exist in the way we do now, you feel?

God could have prevented cancer from arising. He didn't. Thus, he's evil. No arguing, no questions, not even if it was supposedly for some greater good: torturing children to death is evil, no matter what your excuse is.

[Salandriagado]

This is all kinds of messed up theologically so I'll just get to it:

God IS omniscient, but in order to preserve our free will, He keeps Himself from seeing our future. In doing so, and in creating anything apart from Himself, He gave up at least a bit of His complete control of the Universe. So while God surely knew that diseases and such might arise later on down the line, it clearly wasn't enough to stop Him from enacting His perfect will, which was to create us, and then lead us back to Him. That process results in eternal life, and beatitude for us, the ultimate and only source of happiness in our existence; of course He was going to put us into the world!

So no, God doesn't just go around putting tumors in the heads of kids. That's so contrary to everything about the nature of God, haha. It's just the logical end of a world that's metaphysically distinct from God. If we only existed within his complete presence, we wouldn't really exist in the way we do now, you feel?

That is the most convoluted thing I’ve ever read.

Tumors, disease, and the like are unfortunately a natural part of life. The lord doesn’t physically manage the world like a micromanager.

If you create the universe, you're responsible for all of the natural things that arise in it.

[Salandriagado]

So why call it "god", rather than "evolutionary psychology"?

People are more familiar with what it means to believe in God, not everyone is familiar with that it means to believe in Evolutionary Psychology, so I do it for that reason. But I don't think it would make much of a difference practically.

It absolutely does make a difference. In particular, if you call it what it is, you don't need to believe in anything: you have evidence, and you test your claims. You can learn. You, and humanity at large, can advance through it. If you call it "god", you're simply declaring that you aren't going to do any of that, that you're going to stop thinking, and there's no possibility of advancement.

[Erythrean Thebes]

I think his parentage was unclear, and that Mary would not admit to any father other than the Holy Spirit. I think it's pretty clear that Joseph was not the father, given that he was surprised by the pregnancy and initially contrived to 'destroy' Mary

Then Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

One must admit, the claim that he was the Messiah was probably the most controversial claim ever made in the Jewish religion. As I think, to those who endorsed and accepted his claim, he fulfilled the prophecy by playing the role believably. I don't doubt that in some aspects of the prophecy Jesus' candidacy was only convenient, or plausible.

[Salandriagado]

I'd be more than happy to provide the Ahmadi Islam philosophy on God.

I'd also love to try my hand at making a Catholic of you in turn, but I think we outa focus on at LEAST making deists of every agnostic, atheist, and anti-theist here, lmao

There's a really really easy way to do it: provide some evidence. Note that, since "god exists" is not an analytic statement, no amount of sitting around thinking really hard and/or talking can ever amount to evidence. Set up an experiment to test your hypothesis, run it, and see what happens. Provide all of the details here, so that we can replicate your experiment. Do that, and you'll convert almost all of us, essentially instantly.

[Jolthig]

Okay, regarding that, any diseases of any kind according to science is neither good nor bad. They just happen to be natural. Especially a child having cancer or any diseases of any kind by anyone who has them. Yet, there are also cures that scientists invent or have yet to be invented.

That's only valid if you believe that the diseases come from a mindless process. That is: if you assume that there is no god. If there is a god, then all natural actions are the deliberate result of that god's actions, and so those that cause suffering to innocents are evil, by any sane definition of the word "evil".

According to Islam, all the diseases, natural disasters, and what not are all trials and there is a hidden good in them. An opportunity for humanity to find a cure, and to advance from it, or that evolution gives individuals ways to resist diseases over the course of long periods of time.

That's just not answering the question. At any rate, torturing children to death is still evil, even if you say it's for the greater good.

Although I just joined your discussion with the other guy (not looking completely at the debate), this is a strawman. I did not say that God loves to torture kids to death with cancer because of whatever supposed malevolent nature that he has.

Suffering is neither good nor bad according to nature. If anyone gets a disease, then it's a natural process. A test for humanity to find a cure as I stated in my previous comment. Diseases also distinguish between good and bad people. The good will take action to ensure that the diseased person is taken care of and a cure is found while for the bad people, they are exposed for their nature.

This gives evidence of a God guiding the process of how his creation are generated.

That's not how evidence works.

I probably should've said something else or been more specific in the comment as God is outside the physical universe (though at the same time, interacts with it according to Islamic beliefs). So my bad.

[Farnhamia]

Then Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

One must admit, the claim that he was the Messiah was probably the most controversial claim ever made in the Jewish religion. As I think, to those who endorsed and accepted his claim, he fulfilled the prophecy by playing the role believably. I don't doubt that in some aspects of the prophecy Jesus' candidacy was only convenient, or plausible.

*strolls by ominously* We do have a Christian Discussion Thread, you know, where questions about the legitimacy of Jesus' claim to the Messiah belong. We seem to be drifting a bit.

[Neutraligon]

Then Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

One must admit, the claim that he was the Messiah was probably the most controversial claim ever made in the Jewish religion. As I think, to those who endorsed and accepted his claim, he fulfilled the prophecy by playing the role believably. I don't doubt that in some aspects of the prophecy Jesus' candidacy was only convenient, or plausible.

In the Jewish religion there are very few requirements. First they must be a direct descendant of David through the male line. Second he must rebuild the temple. Third he must gather the Jews and bring them together in Jerusalem. The world must all turn to God, and the Jews will turn to study the Torah and fathom its secrets. Jesus failed every one of these.
Add to that Jesus's failure in prophecy and even by the Torah's own standard Jesus cannot be the Messiah...or God.

One must admit, the claim that he was the Messiah was probably the most controversial claim ever made in the Jewish religion. As I think, to those who endorsed and accepted his claim, he fulfilled the prophecy by playing the role believably. I don't doubt that in some aspects of the prophecy Jesus' candidacy was only convenient, or plausible.

*strolls by ominously* We do have a Christian Discussion Thread, you know, where questions about the legitimacy of Jesus' claim to the Messiah belong. We seem to be drifting a bit.

How are we supposed to discuss the belief in god and why without discussing things like this?

[Salandriagado]

Do you think that the notion that evil people deserve punishment and good people deserve assistance requires justification?

Yes. Yes, I do.

According to conventional morality, say in a random town in New England in the present, are you evil or do you do evil?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. If people are inherently evil, then punishing them for it makes no sense. If people aren't inherently evil, then you should try to rehabilitate them instead. I have no idea what people in New England think on these matters, having never been there.

Collective punishment is also inherently evil.

I believe it's usually wrong, but it's hardly the worst thing in the world.

It's definitely in the top three.

You are an uncritical practitioner of the religion, just one who likes to dress up your lack of critical thought in fancy words, and pay lip-service to critical thought.

You have no grounds for saying that to me. You have actually broken a cardinal rule of debate, both by attacking me personally, and by deliberately lying and making claims about me that I took pains to lay aside in all of my earlier posts. Actually, I have stringently applied myself to show respect to you, and to everyone in this thread, and even if you said the cruelest things imaginable about me, I would still do that kindness for you Salandriagado.

No, I'm explicitly attacking what you're saying. You are dismissing all evidence against your beliefs as irrelevant without consideration. That is precisely the hallmark of an uncritical believer.

It is not, in any way, consistent with reality, though, so that's utterly irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, the debate won't continue, if you make arguments for the nonexistence of God, because I don't contend that God exists, and I won't try to offer any proof of that you. So in what way have I lied about myself, and about what I am debating?

So what the fuck are you debating then? Stare very hard at the title of the thread. Are you arguing that god exists, or is this a threadjack?

[Novo Vaticanus]

And yet, has no problem dropping childhood lukemia on us, which is, by every measure, vastly worse than dropping nails out of a plane.

It seems like your whole problem with God is that kids get cancer. This is a very, very common argument against the faithand it really doesn't hold any kind of logical water if you think about it.

God created the universe apart from Himself. That means He gave up some level of His complete control in doing so. Cancer is just a thing that occurs in this Universe, which follows Newton's laws. It isn't like God created the whole fucking universe to just make cancer, haha. He created it so that we could exist within it, and then choose Him.

You had a lot more to say, but the only issue with the faith I could really distinguish was this, so, I'm glad to try and offer a refutation to any other theological claims you'd like to make against the Church.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it a million more, there's no argument against the Catholic faith which can't be refuted.

[Salandriagado]

That's only valid if you believe that the diseases come from a mindless process. That is: if you assume that there is no god. If there is a god, then all natural actions are the deliberate result of that god's actions, and so those that cause suffering to innocents are evil, by any sane definition of the word "evil".



That's just not answering the question. At any rate, torturing children to death is still evil, even if you say it's for the greater good.

Although I just joined your discussion with the other guy (not looking completely at the debate), this is a strawman. I did not say that God loves to torture kids to death with cancer because of whatever supposed malevolent nature that he has.

Nor did I say that you did.

Suffering is neither good nor bad according to nature. If anyone gets a disease, then it's a natural process.

If you created nature, then the results of all natural processes are entirely and completely your fault.

A test for humanity to find a cure as I stated in my previous comment. Diseases also distinguish between good and bad people. The good will take action to ensure that the diseased person is taken care of and a cure is found while for the bad people, they are exposed for their nature.

And we're back to the "torturing children for the greater good" argument.

That's not how evidence works.

I probably should've said something else or been more specific in the comment as God is outside the physical universe (though at the same time, interacts with it according to Islamic beliefs). So my bad.

"Outside the physical universe" is literally the exact same statement as "doesn't exist".

[Thermodolia]

That is the most convoluted thing I’ve ever read.

Tumors, disease, and the like are unfortunately a natural part of life. The lord doesn’t physically manage the world like a micromanager.

If you create the universe, you're responsible for all of the natural things that arise in it.

Not really. If create a chair or a habit you aren’t responsible for anything that happens afterwards. Well in most places you aren’t.

We have different views on the matter and it’s pointless to debate as we aren’t going to change eachothers view

[Neutraligon]

It seems like your whole problem with God is that kids get cancer. This is a very, very common argument against the faithand it really doesn't hold any kind of logical water if you think about it.

God created the universe apart from Himself. That means He gave up some level of His complete control in doing so.

WHy did he do that? Also how does that follow?

Cancer is just a thing that occurs in this Universe, which follows Newton's laws. It isn't like God created the whole fucking universe to just make cancer, haha. He created it so that we could exist within it, and then choose Him.

Except that he made a world where it is possible for cancer to exist. Why did he make a world where cancer could exist instead of one where cancer cannot exist?

You had a lot more to say, but the only issue with the faith I could really distinguish was this, so, I'm glad to try and offer a refutation to any other theological claims you'd like to make against the Church.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it a million more, there's no argument against the Catholic faith which can't be refuted.

You have yet to provide an argument for the Catholic faith that can be substantiated.